Innovation Pharmaceuticals Inc (IPIX)

[Justfactsmam]

This is a very salient and relevant article by those who raise the issue of whether molnupiravir is in "competition" with Brilacidin.

Very "ON_TOPIC" as we near the Top Line Reporting of Brilacidin's Clinical Trials.

AS YOU NOTED IN THE PREVIOUS POSTING...Molnupiravir was TOTALLY INEFFECTIVE in Moderate to Severe Cases of COVID...where BRILACIDIN TRIALS WERE FOCUSED!

...and ONLY 50% more effective than the PLACEBO... Huhh? Playing statistics/percentage games...while trying to pump another potentially TOXIC DRUG into the American public?

Then we have the article...


The article posted...raises more serious issues about molnupiravir's Mutatgenic and Cancer-causing effects, which have not even been mentioned in reporting of Molnupiravir by Merck and the Medical/Scientific community, no less addressed by the mainstream media/financial news...What about MERCK SILENCE on these issues?... Actual conclusions that it is safe on Humans can only be played out with long-term testing...

AND FDA, as well as MERCK, RIDGEBACK...as well as GILEAD, know it!

IF THEY DIDN'T KNOW IT...then WHY WOULD MERCK EXCLUDE PREGNANT WOMEN FROM THEIR TRIALS ... as well as telling men to abstain from heterosexual intercourse"???

"Schinazi told Barron that he did not believe that molnupiravir should be given to pregnant women, or to young people of reproductive age until more data is available.

Merck’s trials of molnupiravir have excluded pregnant women; the scientists running the trial asked male participants to “abstain from heterosexual intercourse” while taking the drug, according to the federal government website that tracks clinical trials.

A paper published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases in May by Schinazi and scientists at the University of North Carolina reported that NHC caused mutations in animal cell cultures in a lab test designed to detect such mutations.

“The risks for the host may not be zero,” the authors concluded. “Evaluating the utility of this drug should be done in those likely to receive the greatest benefit, with monitoring provided to assess potential long-term genotoxic side effects.”

One of the paper’s authors, Dr. Shuntai Zhou, a scientist at the Swanstrom Lab at UNC, said that he and his colleagues had flagged their initial findings to Merck in July 2020, roughly a year before his paper was published.
“There is a concern that this will cause long-term mutation effects, even cancer,” Zhou says.
Zhou says that he is certain that the drug will integrate itself into the DNA of mammalian hosts. “Biochemistry won’t lie,” he says. “This drug will be incorporated in the DNA.”

What impact it will have when it’s there is unknown, given the various systems human cells use to limit the impact of mutations.
Merck scientists responded to the UNC paper in a subsequent issue of the Journal of Infectious Disease, saying that their tests of molnupiravir in animals had not found higher mutation rates. The Merck scientists also took issue with details of the UNC authors’ methods. In a reply, the UNC scientists stood by their methods, and wrote that they believed that molnupiravir should only be used in people at high risk of serious illness from Covid-19 until its long-term risks are better understood.
Some experts have advised caution on the part of Merck and regulators.
“Given the possibility that the drug could be incorporated into cellular DNA, it will be very important to demonstrate a lack of cancer in animal models and in humans,” says Nathaniel Landau, a professor in the department of microbiology at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine who is not involved in any of the NHC or molnupiravir research. “Even though it looks good in preliminary animal models, it will be important not to rush this into clinical use before being very confident that it does not cause cancer even at very low frequencies.”

Molnupiravir’s first brush with public attention, long before Merck began its collaboration with Ridgeback, came in May 2020, when the former head of the U.S. government’s Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority said in a whistleblower complaint that he had been pressured to provide funding for molnupiravir, then known as EIDD-2801, but had objected, partially due to safety concerns. The former BARDA head, Dr. Rick Bright, told Bloomberg this past March that the involvement of Merck had “softened” his concerns.

Dr. Rick Bright, told Bloomberg this past March that the involvement of Merck had “softened” his concern about MOLNUPEIRAVIR